Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM Cloud Pak for Integration vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 3, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Cloud Pak for Integration
Ranking in API Management
24th
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
15th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in API Management
10th
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the API Management category, the mindshare of IBM Cloud Pak for Integration is 0.4%, down from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.1%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Management
 

Featured Reviews

Neelima Golla - PeerSpot reviewer
A hybrid integration platform that applies the functionality of closed-loop AI automation
I recommend using it because, in today's context, the cloud plays a significant role. Within the same user interface, you can develop applications and manage multiple applications, making it a more user-friendly option. Moreover, you can explore various other technologies while deploying on the cloud, broadening your knowledge of cloud technologies. In my case, the transition led to my learning of Kubernetes, enabling multi-scaling and expanding my technical skills. It was a valuable experience, and I had the opportunity to learn many new things during the migration process. I can easily rate it an eight or nine out of ten.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It is a stable solution."
"Redirection is a key feature. It helps in managing multiple microservices by centralizing control and access."
"The most valuable aspect of the Cloud Pak, in general, is the flexibility that you have to use the product."
"Cloud Pak for Integration is definitely scalable. That is the most important criteria."
"The most preferable aspect would be the elimination of the command, which was a significant improvement. In the past, it was a challenge, but now we can proceed smoothly with the implementation of our policies and everything is managed through JCP. It's still among the positive aspects, and it's a valuable feature."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Some of the key features are the integration platform, query mechanism, message handling within the bus, and the rules engine. We've had a really good experience with webMethods Integration Server."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together."
"The solution has a very comprehensive and versatile set of connectors. I've been able to utilize it for multiple, different mechanisms. We do a lot of SaaS and we do have IoT devices and the solution is comprehensive in those areas."
"Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
 

Cons

"Enterprise bots are needed to balance products like Kafka and Confluent."
"The pricing can be improved."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"Setting up Cloud Pak for Integration is relatively complex. It's not as easy because it has not yet been fully integrated. You still have some products that are still not containerized, so you still have to run them on a dedicated VM."
"Its queuing and messaging features need improvement."
"It would be nice if they had a change management system offering. We built our own deployer application because the one built into webMethods couldn't enforce change management rules. Integration into a change management system, along with the version control system, would be a good offering; it's something that they're lacking."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"I would like to see the price improve."
"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."
"The learning curve is a little steep at first."
"The initial setup of the webMethods Integration Server is not easy but it gets easier once you know it. It is tiresome but not difficult."
"​Large file handling is pretty hard comparatively to other middleware tools."
"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing model is very flexible."
"It is an expensive solution."
"It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one."
"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."
"Currently, the licensing solution for this product is pretty straightforward. The way that Software AG has moved in their licensing agreements is very understandable. It is very easy for you to see where things land. Like most vendors today, they are transaction based. Therefore, just having a good understanding of how many transactions that you are doing a year would be very wise. Luckily, there are opportunities to work with the vendor to get a good understanding of how many transactions you have and what is the right limit for you to fall under."
"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."
"webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them."
"The solution's development license is free for three to six months. We have to pay for other things."
"Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced."
"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Cloud Pak for Integration?
The most preferable aspect would be the elimination of the command, which was a significant improvement. In the past, it was a challenge, but now we can proceed smoothly with the implementation of ...
What needs improvement with IBM Cloud Pak for Integration?
Enterprise bots are needed to balance products like Kafka and Confluent.
What is your primary use case for IBM Cloud Pak for Integration?
It manages APIs and integrates microservices at the enterprise level. It offers a range of capabilities for handling APIs, microservices, and various integration needs. The platform supports thousa...
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CVS Health Corporation
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Cloud Pak for Integration vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.